No, you cannot defend your stance. I have constantly been comparing the ban on porn to pedophilia. You constantly come back at me with the stupid legal crap. I said put an age verification on it then in a sub-forum. Here, how about this. Hypothetically speaking. You make a porn only section with an age verification on it.

Now tell me why you don't want porn in here, but you want to allow pedophiles to remain. We aren't talking about how these two are conducting themselves. We are talking about image. PR as you said.

Can you finally get the picture I'm trying to paint for you?

Pedophilia is not a normal sexual orientation and cannot be compared to actual normal attractions. It is a disorder. In fact, that very reason alone should knock off pedophilia as a sexual orientation. It should be considered a handicap like any other disorder. Except that this particular handicap has a shit ton of possible legal issues surrounding it.

Let me ask you something... if someone is retarded, do you consider them to have normal intelligence like the rest of albeit not as smart as most? What about someone that suffers from clinical depression. Do you say they experience regular emotions like the rest of us, just that they experience more anger and sadness than most? I'm guessing no. I'm guessing you classify those people as having a disorder... a handicap. Now if you're going to argue that being attracted to children is not a handicap or disorder, then that's an entirely different debate.

This is getting boring...

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.” -Neil deGrasse Tyson

Oh, and don't get me wrong.
I think it would work to stop people posting in shitty threads.
My point is that it would be based on opinion, which I am saying that in that case you might as well close the thread.
It'll just cause problems every time a thread is moved there.

(06-07-2013 10:36 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote: No, you cannot defend your stance. I have constantly been comparing the ban on porn to pedophilia. You constantly come back at me with the stupid legal crap. I said put an age verification on it then in a sub-forum. Here, how about this. Hypothetically speaking. You make a porn only section with an age verification on it.

Now tell me why you don't want porn in here, but you want to allow pedophiles to remain. We aren't talking about how these two are conducting themselves. We are talking about image. PR as you said.

Can you finally get the picture I'm trying to paint for you?

Pedophilia is not a normal sexual orientation and cannot be compared to actual normal attractions. It is a disorder. In fact, that very reason alone should knock off pedophilia as a sexual orientation. It should be considered a handicap like any other disorder. Except that this particular handicap has a shit ton of possible legal issues surrounding it.

Let me ask you something... if someone is retarded, do you consider them to have normal intelligence like the rest of albeit not as smart as most? What about someone that suffers from clinical depression. Do you say they experience regular emotions like the rest of us, just that they experience more anger and sadness than most? I'm guessing no. I'm guessing you classify those people as having a disorder... a handicap. Now if you're going to argue that being attracted to children is not a handicap or disorder, then that's an entirely different debate.

This is getting boring...

Once upon a time this:

"Pedophilia is not a normal sexual orientation and cannot be compared to actual normal attractions. It is a disorder. In fact, that very reason alone should knock off pedophilia as a sexual orientation. It should be considered a handicap like any other disorder."

(06-07-2013 09:43 AM)Revenant77x Wrote: So then what's the difference between Simgiran and say Theword. Simgiran makes you uncomfortable because of what he claims to be and what he says, yet Theword comes here and spews hate vitriol and lies yet he's ok lets ban the one that has yet to insult anyone because we don't like what he is. It doesn't matter if that is the only thing he has ever posted about he has not violated any forum rules by discussing it. You can make a case that someone coming out of a horrible family situation seeing someone like Theword telling them they are stupid and going to burn in hell is traumatic but I have never seen the kind of reaction to that kind of abuse that these two have gotten on a board that claims to be pro-free speech.

If you want a heavily censored board where only the party line is allowed there are tons of forums out there that do exactly that. Try Atheismplus, their mods swing the banhammer freely. Word of warning however if you say anything that is not in lockstep you might just get that ban. What I don't get is why everyone wants to take practically the only forum that doesn't do that and remove the one thing that makes it special. If it means we occasionally have to deal with a few undesirables so be it. America's free speech policy means the WBC can exist but it also means that anywhere they go to protest with their hate they are met with an even larger crowd of people telling them they are wrong and mocking them. That is the ideal don't like what someone says then tell em why they are wrong. Silencing a voice by fiat is the weakest form of argument and an admission that you can not successfully argue the facts. Do I agree with what either Ethan or Simgiran are saying, no and I have told them that. However I do think they have a right to say it and to be consistent on this board they should not be banned. Free speech > hurt feelings

For me, this isn't about hurt feelings. I even urged one of the affected to let her rationality triumph over judgment. I even told the pedophiles I'd happily share a drink with them at a bar and I'm 100% sincere in that. After all, psychology fascinates me. But I dare not ever trust them around my children or any other child.

Theword? I am not familiar with him. But from your explanation, he is exercising free speech. He spews hate? Free speech. He lies? Free will. Simgiran and Ethan saying they are pedophiles? Confession. Confession about a condition that is neither healthy nor safe for children. Confession about a condition that is widely misunderstood. Say the word "pedophile" to a stranger and ask them what comes to mind.

Therein lies my whole point. If you guys are prepared for this forum to get that type of reaction from people once they see pedophiles, so be it. It's already too late for some anyway. Members have quit over this (we'll see if this holds out though, this place is like crack). Just like how you don't walk into an Atheist forum expecting porn, you don't walk in there expecting confessed pedophiles being a part of the community. You do however expect, in any forum really, angry people and trolls.

To keep the ideal of total free speech then yes I am willing to deal with the occasional undesirable. As to gaining a reputation for this I think the reaction to the thread had done more to bump view counts and google hits than the actual OP.

As far as a solution I am good with just staying the course. Keeping true to Starks original vision for this place is worth more than appeasing a few people ruffled feathers. "This place is not for everyone." that is basically the unofficial motto around here and if some people find it is not for them that's ok too.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote: America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense

By the way, I say they both ONLY post about pedophilia because I don't consider simgiran's few posts outside of it as having any sort of significance. I don't like when someone gives me a contrived apology. I don't go around saying they ever apologized to me if all it was, was a fake one.

Simgiran was called out for the two pedophile threads. Then he posts in other sections afterwards? You're counting that? He's said he was an Atheist after being asked. Happenstance. It's not the reason he came here and he even admitted as much. Both came from a Google search about pedophilia.

Wonderful. TTA forums gets good hits for pedophilia. But man-o-man... that porn... I tell you... that's some bad PR.

(06-07-2013 10:42 AM)Revenant77x Wrote: To keep the ideal of total free speech then yes I am willing to deal with the occasional undesirable. As to gaining a reputation for this I think the reaction to the thread had done more to bump view counts and google hits than the actual OP.

As far as a solution I am good with just staying the course. Keeping true to Starks original vision for this place is worth more than appeasing a few people ruffled feathers. "This place is not for everyone." that is basically the unofficial motto around here and if some people find it is not for them that's ok too.

That's fine with me. So now how about you guys make it more transparent. Put that policy up and set it in stone so there are no more future occurrences like this.

"TTA advocates free speech no matter one's affiliation/affliction/disorder/fantasies. You might be offended by some of its content. You have been warned. And please, no porn. That's just distasteful. Eww."

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.” -Neil deGrasse Tyson

(06-07-2013 10:36 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote: No, you cannot defend your stance. I have constantly been comparing the ban on porn to pedophilia. You constantly come back at me with the stupid legal crap. I said put an age verification on it then in a sub-forum. Here, how about this. Hypothetically speaking. You make a porn only section with an age verification on it.

Now tell me why you don't want porn in here, but you want to allow pedophiles to remain. We aren't talking about how these two are conducting themselves. We are talking about image. PR as you said.

Can you finally get the picture I'm trying to paint for you?

You can say, "what's the difference?", but there is one - namely the legal distinction.

So, you're really asking, "what's the difference in terms of how it reflects on us for allowing it?", but that's a different question, and it wasn't very clear at first that that's how you meant it.

I do think having an age-restricted ("restricted" - it's still the internet...) section is a partial solution.

(06-07-2013 10:36 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote: Pedophilia is not a normal sexual orientation and cannot be compared to actual normal attractions. It is a disorder. In fact, that very reason alone should knock off pedophilia as a sexual orientation. It should be considered a handicap like any other disorder. Except that this particular handicap has a shit ton of possible legal issues surrounding it.

Okay.

(06-07-2013 10:36 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote: Let me ask you something... if someone is retarded, do you consider them to have normal intelligence like the rest of albeit not as smart as most? What about someone that suffers from clinical depression. Do you say they experience regular emotions like the rest of us, just that they experience more anger and sadness than most? I'm guessing no. I'm guessing you classify those people as having a disorder... a handicap. Now if you're going to argue that being attracted to children is not a handicap or disorder, then that's an entirely different debate.

I don't think anyone other than our self-confessed pedophiles went anywhere near that far.

(06-07-2013 10:42 AM)Revenant77x Wrote: To keep the ideal of total free speech then yes I am willing to deal with the occasional undesirable. As to gaining a reputation for this I think the reaction to the thread had done more to bump view counts and google hits than the actual OP.

As far as a solution I am good with just staying the course. Keeping true to Starks original vision for this place is worth more than appeasing a few people ruffled feathers. "This place is not for everyone." that is basically the unofficial motto around here and if some people find it is not for them that's ok too.

I love you Revs.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....BestFerdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.WorstFerdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.

(05-07-2013 10:56 PM)Hobbitgirl Wrote: Yeah Deepthought I'm kind of on the same page. Which makes me sad. Need to think on things.

See... this... this right here I don't get... same with DT.

I just don't understand how a forum can become "tainted" by doing the EXACT same thing it's done since its inception.

For what it's worth, my crappy, no-good Christian opinion is this:

Anyone who has to "leave" or "walk away" from this place due to others expressing their own freedom of speech are hypocrites.

So much tolerance is preached by atheists... so many complaints of religious people being bigoted towards atheist because of their expressed view.

So what now? Because someone expressed a view that you disgree with, you leave? As nauseating as the view is, does that person not have the right to express it? Why are you entitled to your views and beliefs, but he is not?

The argument can be made that he is a predtor preying on children, but who are you to judge him? Especially, when there is no tangible evidence to support his claim. And, even if there was, that's for a court to decide, not some person on a forum.

If someone's freedom of speech evokes such an emotional response from you - especially considering the fact that it's only textual and not visual or incidental - then you may want to reconsider your own notion of tolerance.

You also may want to reconsider how an emotional response is evoked from you when prejudice is laid on you by the religious due to your beliefs.

DT and Hobbitgirl, I like both of you, and for all intents and purposes, I would consider you friends. I am not trying to "call you out" or attacking you, I simply want to shed a light on what seems to be a double standard among the atheist community.

And not just this pedo thing, I've addressed this issue many, many times. Online atheists, in GENERAL, are some of the biggest advocates for free speech until someone expresses a contrary view; they are then quick to cry for some sort of action be taken against the offender.

Again, I'm just a novelty around these part, so take my opinion with a grain of salt... it's just how I see it.

I am not a hypocrite. If you look through the threads from my posts, you will see that I am a very tolerante and accepting person. Moreso than a LOT of you.

I'm a very loving and open person. At least I like to think so. I'm okay with a lot of things. A LOT. But everyone has their limits. Fact it.....that I'm -not- okay with people who want to hurt children. Whether they have done it or not.

I fully believe in freedom of speech, and I fully believe that we are too pc and people get offended too easily. But I also believe that with freedom comes responsibility.

For me......Being around people who have desire to do things to children...thats my line.

And honestly, I'm getting really tired of being told what an awful person I am for having different opinions myself on here recently, and then getting yelled at for not agreeing with this.

And of course I consider you a friend KC. Its gonna be terrible to leave the people I care about on here if i decide to do that.

But perhaps thats a good thing for the forums. I don't really fit the kind of people that fit in the popular group here. I'm sorry you guys feel I'm not a quality member. Honestly thats your loss